Suhre v. Haywood County

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that a majority of circuits have held \that neither Supreme Court precedent nor Article III imposes . . . a change-in-behavior requirement\
• “In evaluating standing, the Supreme Court has never required that Establishment Clause plaintiffs take affirmative steps to avoid contact with challenged displays or religious exercises.”
• “The spiritual affront of unwelcome contact with religious symbolism may also be compounded when the display that causes distress is located within a public facility.”
• \Plaintiffs who `are part of the community where challenged religious symbolism is located and are directly affronted by the presence of this symbolism' certainly `have more than an abstract interest in seeing that the government observes the Constitution.'\
• “The Supreme Court identified the proximity of the plaintiffs to the conduct they challenged as a critical factual distinction between the school children in Schempp and the plaintiffs in Valley Forge.”
• county resident had standing to challenge Ten Commandment display in county courthouse

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).